Property Crime in an Era of Drugs and Violence?

An Assessment of North Carolina's 1984 - 1994 Property Crime Trends


May 1996

Table of Contents

Introduction

How do North Carolina's 1984 - 1994 reported property crime rates compare to the 1984 - 1994 Southern and National rates?

How has reported property crime varied by county during the past decade?

How has this increase affected the state's law enforcement community? Specifically, how have arrest patterns behaved during this rise in reported property crime?

Is property crime a youthful endeavor? Have any noticeable changes occurred in the age distribution of arrestees?

Given the increase in the total number of property crime arrests, can one assume that the extent, severity, and general threat of property crime has been reduced?

What are the most frequently stolen items? What is the average dollar loss per offense? How much of the property is recovered?

Discussion




Introduction

An analysis of the nation's crime statistics reveals a dramatic and tremendous amount of growth in the rate at which violent offenses have been reported to law enforcement agencies during the past 10 years. Nationally, the reported murder rate grew 8.4 percent from 1984 to 1994. Reported rapes increased 16 percent, reported robberies grew 11.2 percent and the rate of reported aggravated assaults swelled 57.5 percent over the course of the last decade. The combined rate of reported violent crime experienced a 35.3 percent increase from 1984 to 1994.

Consequently, this escalation in the level of reported violent crime has produced, or contributed to, a sizeable increase in the aggregate violent crime arrest rate that has grown 46.2 percent since 1984. Changes in the arrest rates for each specific violent crime varied from a high 68.1 percent increase for aggravated assault, to a decline of 9.5 percent for rape. The arrest rates for murder and robbery expanded 17.2 percent each.

The 10-year trend in North Carolina's total rate of reported violent crime paralled the increasing national trend, yet the state's growth greatly exceeded the national growth during this period. North Carolina's reported violent crime rate has increased 63.6 percent since 1984. Reported robberies have escalated 142 percent, reported rapes have grown 52.5 percent, the reported murder rate has climbed 42.3 percent, and reported aggravated assault has ballooned 45 percent since 1984.

As a result of this exorbitant increase in reported violence, North Carolina's violent crime arrest rate grew more than the national rate during the past decade. The state's 1994 rate was 55.9 percent higher than its 1984 violent crime arrest rate. Since 1984, the robbery arrest rate expanded 92.9 percent, the arrest rate for murder has grown 53.4 percent, the aggravated assault arrest rate increased 53.2 percent, and the arrest rate for rape experienced a minimal jump of 2.6 percent.

Numerous explanations have been offered when trying to account for the heightened increase, and the widening prevalence, of violent crime. The majority of them revolve around the influential role of drug distribution networks, gangs, and the availability of firearms,and how these factors have coalesced and directly shaped the quantity and nature of violent crime during the past decade. These explanations have originated from the academic, political, mass media, and public sectors of society. Their pervasive influence and impact, as well as the rise of violent crime in general, have arguably become the most predominant contemporary social issues confronting the nation today.

The topics of violent crime, drugs, gangs, and firearms receive extensive media coverage, permeate educational, political, and public health discourse, and command considerable attention whenever policy and budgetary decisions are involved. While the severity and urgency of these issues cannot be denied or ignored, they have in many instances overshadowed or displaced concern for other types of criminal offenses; and the effects and consequences that violence, drugs, and weapons have exerted upon these other "forgotten" crimes.

The purpose of this report is to examine the "forgotten," yet still most prevalent, category of criminal offenses; i.e., property crime. Specifically, this paper will present an examination of trends in burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft activities from 1984 to 1994. Emphasis is directed toward analyzing the frequency, prevalence, and incidence patterns for these offenses; and how these patterns have been affected by, and interacted with, the dramatic increase in both drug offenses and violent crime that occurred in North Carolina over the past 10 years.

North Carolina's reported burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft rates are compared with the cumulative rates for other southern states, as well as the national rates. Reported offense rates are also analyzed at the county level in order to delineate how these offense patterns have varied across the state since 1984. Arrest and offense clearance data, as well as information on stolen and recovered property, are highlighted in an effort to provide some insight into the specific nature of property crime in North Carolina.

How do North Carolina's 1984 - 1994 reported property crime rates compare to the 1984 - 1994 Southern and National rates?

As depicted in Figure 1, the rate of growth in North Carolina's reported property crime exceeded the growth rates for both the South and the nation over the course of the prior decade. The state's reported property crime rate swelled 37 percent from 1984 to 1994. During this same period the rate for the South increased 16.2 percent and the national rate experienced a slight 3.7 percent increase. Consequently, the state's rate of reported property crime has been higher than the national rate since 1991 and has closely approximated the southern rate since 1992.

The state's higher and faster rate of growth for all property offenses has been driven by its burglary and larceny reporting patterns. From 1984 to 1994 the reported burglary rate increased 30.6 percent in North Carolina, while declining 17.6 percent for the nation and 7.1 percent for the southern states. The state's burglary rates have been consistently higher than the nation's since 1987 and the South's since 1990. The state's reported larceny rate grew 37.6 percent from 1984 to 1994 and surpassed the national rate in 1991. The South's larceny rate grew a slower 22 percent from 1984 to 1994, and may drop below North Carolina's rate in the next several years. (Refer to Figures 2 and 3.)

Motor vehicle theft is the only property offense in which North Carolina's rate is significantly lower than both the national and southern rates. However, the rate of reported motor vehicle thefts in North Carolina experienced the greatest percentage of growth (69.9%) when contrasted with the South (58.3%) and the nation (35.3%) during the period of 1984 to 1994. North Carolina's rate escalated from 182 thefts, per 100,000, in 1984 to 309 thefts, per 100,000, in 1994.

How has reported property crime varied by county during the past decade?

Figure 5 graphically presents the geographical distribution for the percent of change in the aggregate reported property crime rates from 1984 to 1994. Complete data were available for 93 of the state's 100 counties and of those counties that fully reported this information only four experienced a decline in their property crime rates. The largest decline occurred in Alleghany County, where reported property crime dropped 34.3 percent. The second largest decline occurred in Camden County whose 1994 rate was 19.6 percent lower than its 1984 rate.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this geographical analysis is the fact that 95.7 percent of the counties experienced some form of an increase in their reported property crime rates since 1984. Nineteen of the counties experienced a slight 1 to 25 percent increase in their respective property crime rates. Increases in this category ranged from a low of two percent (Onslow County) to a high of 25 percent (Surry and Caldwell counties). An increase of 26 to 50 percent was noted for 20 of the counties. The distribution of change within this category covered the full range of possible values, with Cumberland County reporting a 26 percent increase and Person County reporting a 50 percent increase.

Twenty- two counties experienced between a 51 and 75 percent increase in their reported property crime rates. Since 1984, reported property crime has grown 55 percent in Guilford County, 73 percent in Alexander County, and 75 percent in Caswell County. Ten of the state's counties fell in the 76 to 100 percent increase category, with Pasquotank County experiencing an 80 percent increase in their reported property crime rate. The increase in Chatham County's property crime rate placed them at the maximum end of this category (99.4%). The remaining 18 counties experienced dramatic and exorbitant levels of growth (percentage change of greater than 100%) in their property crime rates during the prior decade. These increases ranged from 104 percent in Northampton County, to the state high of 198 percent in Brunswick County.

A rough visual analysis of the counties that experienced an increase in property crime rates fails to reveal any outstanding or clear cut regional distribution patterns. Counties reporting low, moderate, and high increases can be found within each region of the state. However, upon closer examination a few clusters can be discerned on a regional basis. The greatest proportion of the counties experiencing a slight increase (1-25%) in their reported property crime rates were clustered in the western portion of the state. The largest group of counties with an excessive increase of more than 100 percent tended to cluster in the eastern portion of the state.

Figures 6, 7, and 8 present geographical distributions for each of the three specific property offenses in an effort to further isolate those offenses that have been responsible for shaping the changes in each county's aggregate reported property crime rate during the past decade. Figure 6 shows seven counties experienced a decline in their respective burglary rates. The most pronounced drop in reported burglaries occurred in Alleghany County with its 1994 rate being 35.1 percent lower than its 1984 rate. Twenty-one counties reported increases between 1 to 25 percent, while 14 counties reported higher increases of 26 to 50 percent. Reported burglary rates grew 51 to 75 percent in 18 counties, and 76 to 100 percent in 13 counties. The remaining 25 counties reported increases of greater than 100 percent in the rate at which burglaries were reported to law enforcement officials. The counties of Brunswick (272%), Chowan (195%), Duplin (194%), Yadkin (182%), and Sampson (179%) experienced the greatest growth in reported burglaries from 1984 to 1994.

Figure 7 graphically presents the percentage of change, in each county's reported larceny rate, from 1984 to 1994. The distribution of change in reported larceny rates closely approximated the burglary distribution with a nearly identical number of counties falling within each of the percentage categories. However, as a comparison of Figures 6 and 7 reveals the percentage of change in a county's burglary rate does not guarantee a comparable amount of change in its larceny rate. Five counties experienced declining larceny rates with the most appreciable decline being recorded for Ashe County (20.5%). Eighteen counties reported increases in the range of one to 25 percent and an equal number reported increases in the 26 to 50 percent range. Seventeen counties experienced an increase in the range of 51 to 75 percent, and reported larceny rates escalated 76 to 100 percent in 16 counties. Twenty-four of the state's counties encountered increases of greater than 100 percent during the 10 year period with Madison County experiencing the largest growth in its reported larceny rates (480%). Significantly excessive changes were also noted for Currituck County (394%), Brunswick County (300%), Stanly County (203%), and Pamlico County (189%).

The distribution of change in reported motor vehicle theft rates is also similar to the burglary and larceny distribution patterns, with one major noticeable exception. A substantially alarming and significantly higher number of counties experienced increases of more than 100 percent when contrasted with the number of counties experiencing this level of change for either burglary or larceny. This is indicative of the rapid statewide growth which has occurred in the reported motor vehicle theft rate over the course of the prior decade. Forty-five counties experienced this excessive growth, with the highest percentage of growth occurring in Martin County (844%). Tremendous growth also occurred in the counties of Jackson (799%), Tyrrell (693%), Sampson (515%), and Greene (484%).

Fifteen counties reported motor vehicle theft rates growing between 76 and 100 percent, with nine counties experiencing increases from 51 to 75 percent. Reported motor vehicle theft rates climbed 26 to 50 percent in 11 counties, and between 1 and 25 percent in 10 counties. Reported motor vehicle theft rates decreased in seven counties, with the most notable decline occurring in Carteret County (54%).

How has this increase affected the state's law enforcement community? Specifically, how have arrest patterns behaved during this rise in reported property crime?

Figure 9 depicts the total number of arrests, over the past 10 years, for each of the three specific property offenses. Larceny arrests experienced the most growth with the total number of 1994 arrests (39,615) being 43.9 percent higher than the number recorded in 1984 (27,525). Larceny arrests steadily increased from 1984 to the trend high year of 1991, a year in which 42,178 individuals were arrested for this offense. Larceny arrests have declined 6.1 percent since reaching their peak in 1991.

Burglary arrests grew 31.4 percent during this 10 year period, yet the number of arrests remained relatively constant from one year to the next. Unlike the trend in larceny arrests, no noticeable periods of high activity were apparent. The trend high of 17,292 arrests in 1991 demonstrated only a moderate amount of variation from the trend low of 12,369 arrests in 1985. The number of individuals arrested for burglary declined from 1991 to 1993 and experienced a slight 2.6 percent increase the following year.

Compared to the exorbitant rise in the number of reported motor vehicle thefts, arrests for this offense have not grown at a comparable pace. The number of arrests recorded in 1994 (2,369) was only 23.9 percent higher than the number recorded in 1984 (1,912). Arrests continually increased from 1984 to the trend high year of 1989 (2,666 arrests), declined from 1989 to 1992, and increased 4.6 percent from 1992 to 1994.

Is property crime a youthful endeavor? Have any noticeable changes occurred in the age distribution of arrestees?

Figures 10 - 12 provide age distribution pie charts which present juvenile and youthful offender arrests as a percentage of the 1984 and 1994 total burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft arrests. As these charts reveal, the majority of those arrested for property crime are either teenagers or young adults. However, the nature and quantity of these arrests have experienced a considerable transformation during the past decade. In 1984, burglary was the top property offense, with juveniles and young adults being the greatest proportion of those arrested. Nearly 71 percent of the individuals who were arrested for burglary in 1984 were under the age of 25. By 1994 motor vehicle theft became the top property crime for this age group, with 65.4 percent of all arrestees being under the age of 25.

Perhaps even more noteworthy is the predominant decline in the relative proportion of juveniles and young adults who were arrested in 1984, compared to the proportion arrested in 1994. Given the dramatic increase in reported property crime rates and an increase in the number of total arrests, it is indeed surprising to note that this decline occurred for nearly all of the offense by age categories depicted in these figures. The number of juvenile and youthful offender arrests, as a percentage of the total arrests, declined for each of the three offenses, with the greatest decline occurring for burglary. Offenders under the age of 25 constituted 70.6 percent of all 1984 burglary arrestees and a lesser 55.1 percent of the 1994 burglary arrestees. Arrest data for 1984 show that offenders in these age groups accounted for 58.1 percent of all larceny arrests and 67.5 percent of all arrests for motor vehicle theft. Arrest data for 1994 document that these offenders comprised 48.7 percent of all larceny arrestees and 65.4 percent of all motor vehicle theft arrestees.

Given the increase in the total number of property crime arrests, can one assume that the extent, severity, and general threat of property crime has been reduced?

Figure 13 presents an alternative set of data for answering this question or for examining system activity within the context of the escalating rate at which property crimes have been reported to law enforcement officials. An increase in property crime arrests may lead to erroneous, or at least premature, conclusions regarding the nature and severity of this crime and even the extent to which property crime is relegated to the status of being defined as a minor problem or nuisance crime. In essence, an increase in property crime arrests, even in the face of more of these crimes being reported, does not completely validate the assumption that property crime has become less of a threat or problem.

The caveat in relying strictly on the total number of arrests lies in the fact that arrest statistics provide a count of people, not crimes. For example: two individuals are arrested for committing one burglary this year and four individuals are arrested for committing one burglary the following year, then arrests have doubled during this time, yet the true number of crimes has remained the same each year. Consequently, if total arrests are incorrectly used as an indicator for judging the extent and perceived threat of property crime, then one could erroneously assume that since arrests have increased the property crime problem is being managed, when in actuality it has remained constant.

A more appropriate test for determining the true magnitude, or the threat of property crime, and the probability of successfully apprehending the property crime offender, is to examine what percentage of the reported property crimes are solved or cleared. The combined clearance rate for all three property offenses was 21.2 percent in 1984 and a considerably lower 17.7 percent 10 years later.

As depicted in Figure 13, clearance rates declined for each specific offense with the greatest decline occurring for the same offense which experienced the largest increase in the number of reported offenses during this period. The clearance rate for motor vehicle theft dropped from 32.5 percent to 27 percent, yet when compared to the other property offenses still remained the most "solvable" type of property crime. The percentage of larceny (21.2%) and burglary (19.4%) cases which were cleared in 1984 dropped precipitously to the current 1994 clearance percentages of 17.9 percent and 15.4 percent respectively.

It is interesting to note that the clearance rate for all combined property crimes, as well as the rate for each specific offense, experienced the most drastic decline between 1989 to 1992; a period which was marked by an escalating drug war, the introduction of crack cocaine, and increasing rates of violent crime.

What are the most frequently stolen items? What is the average dollar loss per offense? How much of the property is recovered?

The specific qualitative nature of property crime in North Carolina remained relatively unchanged during the prior decade, with the types of property which were most frequently reported as stolen in 1984 continuing to be the most frequently stolen in 1994. Motor vehicles, televisions, radios, cameras, jewelry, and money have remained the most common pieces of stolen property. As a percentage of all stolen property the categories of motor vehicles, office equipment, televisions, radios, cameras, and jewelry experienced slight increases; with a simultaneous decline in the proportions for currency, firearms, and household goods. (Refer to Figure 14 for the entire percentage distribution of stolen property.)

Because of varying inflation rates and historical changes in the value of the dollar, annual comparisons of the dollar value of stolen property, or the approximate financial costs associated with property crime, should be approached with caution. Considering the effects of inflation, the average loss per offense did not rise at an extreme level over the course of the past decade. Victims of larceny suffered an average loss of $300 in 1984, while the average loss for burglary victims was $624. In 1994, the average loss per larceny was $433 and the average loss per burglary was $848. The average loss for motor vehicle theft experienced the least amount of growth as this amount only jumped from $4,053 in 1984, to $4,980 in 1994.

As revealed in Figure 16, the cumulative financial effects of property crime exert a considerable negative impact on the state's economy. The cumulative monthly average of stolen property has increased considerably since 1984 when an average of $10,756,455 worth of property was stolen each month. The average value of property that was stolen per month in 1994 ($23,979,949) represented a 123 percent increase over the 1984 monthly average.

The average dollar value for property recovered monthly has also increased since 1984, but as Figure 16 shows this value has not grown at the same rate as the average dollar value for stolen property. The average dollar value for property that was recovered on a monthly basis in 1994 was $6,749,487. This amount represents an increase of 105 percent over the 1984 monthly average of $3,286,314. Consequently, the percentage of stolen property which was eventually recovered declined from 30.6 percent in 1984 to 28.2 percent in 1994.

Discussion

After reviewing the statistical data on North Carolina's property crime trends, three questions must be asked. 1) Why has the state's reported property crime rate grown during the past decade? 2) Why has the level of system activity, such as arrests, offense clearance patterns, and the recovery of stolen property, either declined or at least not maintained an equally comparable growth rate? 3) Why has the percentage of juveniles and young adults who are arrested for property offenses declined? In light of the massive increase in drug activity and the exorbitant escalation of violence, several hypotheses can be advanced in an effort to address these questions and to offer some explanation into how drugs, violence, and property crime interacted during the past 10 years.

One possible explanation for the growth in reported property crime may be that this growth is an indirect consequence of the expanding illicit drug distribution networks which were either newly established or refurbished during the mid and later years of the 1980's. While these networks were originally established for the sole purpose of manufacturing, importing, and distributing illicit substances, their relative financial success over time yielded resulted in an even greater level of power and dominance over the community. Consequently, what began as a small scale enterprise burgeoned into a large scale monopoly. These large scale operations possessed the necessary resources of money, firepower, and the threat of intimidation and violence to ultimately gain control over the entire illegal underground economy. Once firmly entrenched in the community, drug dealers had the option of capturing or muscling their way into the other illegal markets, such as food stamp theft and fraud, gambling, prostitution, and the redistribution of stolen firearms and other property.

Drug users who resorted to stealing property in order to supplement or fully support their drug habits could now directly exchange this property for drugs. They no longer had to go through the traditional "fencing" operation where they first traded the property for cash and then spend time tracking down the drug dealer. In essence the role of the middleman, or fence, was eliminated with the drug distribution networks absorbing this role.

Once in the drug pipeline, property could move easier, faster, safer, and further. Given the national, and in some cases international, scope of the network, a large quantity of this property may have been transported and sold well beyond the state's boundaries. The proceeds were laundered into "clean" cash that was used for manufacturing, importing, and distributing more drugs. This in turn would hamper investigative efforts and hinder the ability to recover much of this stolen property. Indeed, this interstate dispersion of stolen property may explain the decline in the percentage of recovered property.

The secondary use of an existing drug pipeline for moving stolen property may have influenced the types of property stolen. If stolen property was being moved in this fashion then there should have been an increase in the theft of items that were either easily converted to cash, easy to conceal, or could be directly used in the distribution of drugs themselves. This hypothesis may explain why motor vehicles, office equipment, televisions, radios, cameras, and jewelry accounted for a greater proportion of the property stolen in 1994, versus 1984. It also explains why the theft of clothing, consumables and household goods declined during this period. However, this explanation cannot be considered as the only factor that dictated the types of property stolen. In fact, the proportion of currency and firearms stolen between 1984 to 1994 declined, instead of increasing as this explanation would predict.

Perhaps the strongest evidentiary support for the significant link between drugs, violence, and property crime is the fact that those counties which experienced excessive growth in their reported property crime rates also experienced excessive growth in reported violence and drug arrests. This link was most pronounced for those counties that are close to the I-95 highway corridor and to some extent the I-40 and I-85 thoroughfares. The close proximity of this activity to the major traffic routes is indicative of the extent to which these routes facilitate an expedient method for importing and exporting drugs, and possibly stolen property. This also offers further proof of North Carolina's involvement in the national underground economy. Indeed, many cities in the eastern portion of the state became major contact points or delivery sites for drug smuggling from Florida to New York and vice-versa. Consequently, many of our local offenders were solicited to expand their operations by buying a "franchise" of this highly lucrative New York to Florida operation.

This in turn produced a tremendous amount of strain for the state's law enforcement agencies that were now faced with fighting and investigating a greater amount of local crime, plus an increasing level of involvement from outsiders. These outsiders brought enough money, firepower, violence, and national and international contacts to complicate investigative efforts.

The infiltration of extensive interstate drug distribution networks and the potential for huge financial profits contributed to an excessive amount of "turfism." This in turn acted as a catalyst for an increase in the use of violence. Consequently, law enforcement was forced to devote the largest portion of its financial, operational, and investigative resources in the area of drugs and drug related violence. Ultimately this mandated a shifting in priorities and may partially explain why arrests for property related offenses did not keep pace with reported property crime. It also may explain why clearance rates and the recovery of stolen property dropped during this period.

Unfortunately, the evolution of these large scale drug networks and the resulting systemic violence that accompanied their expansion exerted a tremendous toll on the state's juveniles and young adults. Many teens and young adults were recruited into these networks as both primary and secondary players. They were consequently compelled to adopt this subculture's norms and rules - behavior that often defined violence as a necessary aspect of doing business. The declining proportion of juveniles and young adults arrested for property offenses could be indicative of a direct shift in the nature of their criminal behavior. More of these individuals seem to prefer the fast and lucrative lifestyle of the drug world, as opposed to the mundane and opportunistic lifestyle of the property offender.

While this explanation often garners a considerable amount of media appeal, it is probably limited in the fact that it only explains a small portion of the full picture. A more plausible hypothesis for the declining arrest proportions is that the true number of juvenile and youthful property offenders has remained relatively constant. The declining arrest proportions are probably due to law enforcement expending more of its investigative efforts on apprehending those juveniles and young adults who are involved in drug and violent offenses. Law enforcement officials simply do not have the time to investigate as many reported property offenses as they did in the past, because they are too busy investigating drug related and violent crime.

A third explanation may be that the profile of the average property offender has changed during the past decade, with a greater number of older adults becoming involved in these criminal activities as a means of supporting their drug use. Consequently, an excessive increase in the number of adults who were arrested for property offenses would overshadow the number of juveniles and young adults who were arrested. This would produce a shift in the overall arrest proportions. If adult arrests have increased faster, then these young offenders would constitute a lesser percentage of the total property crime arrests than they did 10 years ago.

The advent and implementation of community policing, the renewed emphasis on prevention and early intervention, and the focus on empowering the community may have the potential to exert a future positive impact. An increased police presence, a strong officer-resident rapport, and a reaffirmation of what a community is should all interact and establish or renew community cohesiveness. This community cohesiveness should act as a powerful deterrent to drugs, violence, and property crime.